JASCON ENTERBUILD LTD. Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been preferred under Subsection (6) of Section 11 of the for appointment of the Arbitrator in pursuance of Clause no. 23 of the agreement dated 19 th February, 2009 and 29th March, 2009 (these two dates have been supplied by the learned counsel for the applicant). In pursuance of the agreement Clause no. 23, which is for arbitration, notice has also been given for the appointment of the Arbitrator because the dispute has arisen between the parties for the work done under the agreement.

(2.) Learned counsel for the respondentState submitted that by the Circular dated 18th November, 1992, the said Clause no. 23 has already been deleted and, hence, no Arbitrator can be appointed under Subsection (6) of Section 11 of the Act, 1996. This is the only argument, canvassed by the learned counsel for the respondent State.

(3.) Having heard learned counsels for both the sides and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that: